If Republicans tend to overperform expectations in some races, they will probably also overperform in many, most, or maybe even almost all races. The same holds true for Democrats. (The most recent time something like this occurred was 1998, when polls underestimated the standing of Democrats by 4-5 points nationwide and in almost all individual races.)

I've been thinking like this: Why do polls usually include too many Democrats? Because people don't want to answer political questions if they're Republicans, as they know their answers will tend to be disfavored -- that is, they'd rather keep those answer to themselves.

This would tend to explain the 1998 aberration in which Democrats, rather than Republicans, polled more poorly than their ultimate performance. Consider that in 1998, people decided, yes, Bill Clinton had perjured himself, not once but several times, and obstructed justice. But they had also decided to give him a pass on serial lawbreaking because the economy was too good and vote for Democrats (in an effort to stop impeachment).

Some people might feel ashamed to take that position, putting, as it did, filthy lucre ahead of principle and legality -- and in that case, they might have decided their answers were the disfavored ones, and thus avoided pollsters, resulting in Republican support being overstated.

In most years, one can imagine liberals are more eager to talk with pollsters, as they expect a Scooby Snack, as it were, for mouthing the socially-favored answer. This might account for the persistent understating of conservatism's popularity.

But this year, conservatives might be so eager to proclaim their political views, and liberals so sheepish about it (their god is exposed as a weakling charlatan) that the typical situation is reversed, as was the case in 1998, and polls overstate rather than understate conservative strength, and understate rather than overstate liberal strength.

Even if this eeyore speculation is true, it wouldn't mean the GOP is in for a bad night -- just that they'd be in for a very good night rather than an epochal one. Republicans would still lead by 7-10 or so (which is itself unprecedented or almost so). But it would mean that the lead of 10-15 is overstated.

In addition, if any of this is true, of course it's also true that you can't tack on the typical "and give the Republican 3-4 points to offset polling's traditional understatement of Republican performance" corrective, as you'd really need to correct in the exact opposite way.

So what does this mean?

It means you have to vote. No matter what the polls say, you need to vote, and vote party-line, straight ticket.

Posted by: an erection lasting longer than four hours at October 31, 2010 06:06 PM (ao9DD)

2
Ace, my son has campaigned all summer and autumn for Caligiuri here in CT. I've gone to political debates and rallies for the first time in my life this year. I've donated to political causes for the first time.
TRUST ME. I'll Vote!

Posted by: CoolCzech at October 31, 2010 06:10 PM (tJjm/)

3
Posted by: an erection lasting longer than four hours at October 31, 2010 11:06 PM (ao9DD)
I think you need some serious poling, my friend. Head down to the hospital and ask for the head nurse.

And call all of your friends on Tuesday to make sure they voted. Offer to drive them, to watch their kids for a few minutes, walk the dog so that they can vote on their way home from work and not worry about it, whatever it takes.

Posted by: Less at October 31, 2010 06:11 PM (PGXeZ)

5It means you have to vote. No matter what the polls say, you need to vote, and vote party-line, straight ticket.

Absolutely. But just for the sake of argument, may I suggest that the eagerness of respondents doesn't change the fact that polls released with turnout assumptions improving on Dem turnout in 2006/8 are faulty in the Dems' favor.

Posted by: Methos at October 31, 2010 06:12 PM (Ew1k4)

6
I voted. NOT party line, where it could be massaged by evil, but I checked every Republican name on the ballot.DON'T LET ME DOWN GOP, or I WILL KILL YOU.

16
Howdy Y-not. No offense, but I wish I could vote in Washington or Colorado this year...the GOP will win most of the races here anyway.

Posted by: packsoldier at October 31, 2010 06:19 PM (SGjdK)

17
>>>But just for the sake of argument, may I suggest that the eagerness of respondents doesn't change the fact that polls released with turnout assumptions improving on Dem turnout in 2006/8 are faulty in the Dems' favor.
Yeah that's insane.

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2010 06:20 PM (O9X8m)

18
too much poll shit - time to chill and just vote - we will take the sweep if we get it.

Posted by: armchairpilot at October 31, 2010 06:21 PM (4/XcK)

19But this year, conservatives might be so eager to proclaim their
political views, and liberals so sheepish about it (their god is exposed
as a weakling charlatan) that the typical situation is reversed, as was
the case in 1998, and polls overstate rather than understate
conservative strength, and understate rather than overstate liberal
strength.

Most liberals I know think Obama is doing awesome and that all "sane" people think likewise.

Posted by: 18-1 at October 31, 2010 06:22 PM (bgcml)

20
The tricky part about the elections, I find, is the judges and ballot initiatives, both state and local. It's probably also important to remind people to do their full ballot homework before heading to the polls.

Posted by: Wodeshed at October 31, 2010 06:22 PM (MFbfZ)

21
Only two more days of autistic manic-depressive banging of the same stupid fucking meme, people.

22
Agree with everything said, but do you really think that Dems are being sheepish with pollsters?? The libtards are in absolute protective mode of The One, he can do no wrong in their eyes, so why would they hide their party preference?

Posted by: opus at October 31, 2010 06:23 PM (IebeI)

23
@17I have you beat there. I'm still mid-move (house with furniture still in CA, no DL or car registration or job or home purchase here yet) so I voted absentee in CA.

But I'm loving Utah.

My hubby attended a technology summit last week that had a 10 minute long color guard ceremony in it. And they were using American flags, not Mexican ones! :-)

25respondents doesn't change the fact that polls released with turnout assumptions improving on Dem turnout in 2006/8 are faulty in the Dems' favor.

Yeah that's insane.

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2010 11:20 PM (O9X8m)

And probably party ID ratios have shifted. I'd imagine some I's in 2008 are R, and D's are now Is

Posted by: Oldcat at October 31, 2010 06:24 PM (CN+Qv)

26The tricky part about the elections, I find, is the judges and ballot
initiatives, both state and local. It's probably also important to
remind people to do their full ballot homework before heading to the
polls.
Posted by: Wodeshed at October 31, 2010 11:22 PM

I never vote to retain judges and the only local levy I ever voted for was a new library.

Posted by: huerfano at October 31, 2010 06:25 PM (No0N3)

27
As for judges, you can go to your county GOP website for the endorsements. Even if you're not a Repub, voting for a Dem judge almost always means you're going to get an activist. We don't want any more of that shit, do we?

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at October 31, 2010 06:25 PM (vbh31)

28
Ace, your thesis is based on a faulty premise. There is no such thing as a "sheepish liberal." If anything, the current political climate makes them much more defiant and determined to push their delusional worldview on anyone foolish enough to ask them their opinions.

29
>>>Agree with everything said, but do you really think that Dems are being sheepish with pollsters?? The libtards are in absolute protective mode of The One, he can do no wrong in their eyes, so why would they hide their party preference?
They may or may not be more sheepish, but conservatives are, I think, more likely to want their voices heard. Witness the rallies, the town halls, etc.
It's a relative thing -- if conservatives are less likely to dodge pollsters and more likely to participate than in typical years, the 3-4 point liberal skew would be diminished. If they were now MORE likely to talk to pollsters than liberals, the skew would go the other way.

Posted by: ace at October 31, 2010 06:25 PM (O9X8m)

30In addition, if any of this is true, of course it's also true that you
can't tack on the typical "and give the Republican 3-4 points to offset
polling's traditional understatement of Republican performance"
corrective, as you'd really need to correct in the exact opposite way.

Oh and a lot of polling is presuming that Democrats will have as much enthusiasm as they did in 2008 - which plainly isn't true.

Looking just at the Democrat side, one would expect to see a small number voting Republican and a larger number not voting. Obama, racial warrior and god made flesh isn't on the top of the ticket. Oh and he destroyed the economy. Many of them now believe politics stinks and there is no point in voting...

Posted by: 18-1 at October 31, 2010 06:26 PM (bgcml)

31
Your analysis is interesting but flawed. You're guessing--and you assume that the pollsters are neutral and unbiased. They aren't.

The undersampling of Republicans this year is deliberate--to prevent Democrats from being totally demoralized. They know that the turnout this year will be significantly more Repub than 2008 or 2006.

1992 and 1996 were skewed-screwed up by Perot voters, who stayed home or turned Demo in 1998. 1998 projections were flukish because of attempts--even by relatively competent and unbiased pollsters--to factor in Perotistas

Tuesday there will be no Perot to save the Dems

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at October 31, 2010 06:26 PM (dS2wQ)

32
O/T: This is hysterically funny but sadly I don't think it was meant to be that way. video : 'What We Saw at The Rally to Restore Sanity And/Or Fear'

Posted by: curious at October 31, 2010 06:26 PM (p302b)

33
Here in NC, they don't necessarily print the party affiliations of the judicial candidates, which makes it tricky. Also, the ballot initiatives are sometimes worded in such a way that you have to read up a bit to know whether a "no" vote is to pass or defeat the measure.

35
15 Greg
I missed the day when we learned that it is an iron-clad law of nature that final party voting breakdowns must mirror early voting patterns. Indeed, one could make an excellent argument that early voters are qualitatively different from Election Day voters.

36
As long as we're playing devil's advocate, a decent amount of the people who are energized for our side this year may not want to say they're Republicans either 1.) because they're annoyed at how the leadership's been treating their candidates or 2.) because they're still disillusioned from earlier years.

PPP is about as fucked up as you are, Greggie. They throw darts at a board; you stick darts up your ass; pretty much the same result

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at October 31, 2010 06:32 PM (dS2wQ)

38
Conservatives are less likely to participate in polls. They're too busy out there in the real world being constructive.

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at October 31, 2010 06:32 PM (vbh31)

39As long as we're playing devil's advocate, a decent amount of the people who are energized for our side this year may not want to say they're Republicans either 1.) because they're annoyed at how the leadership's been treating their candidates or 2.) because they're still disillusioned from earlier years.

41
It doesn't matter if Manchin wins in WV Greg. That state is just like Louisiana, it is eventually going to go Red in state elections, especially when the Baby Boomer Generation leaves this earth.You can't debate with that. The Dem Party machine there will eventually be cracked, and once that happens, Democrats will never have a stranglehold on the state again. You can thank Raese for that, and there is nothing you can do to stop that. So troll away because the trends are ultimately against you and trolling is all you have.

Yes it helps motivate people that things aren't in the bag and we should work to get more good people elected.

But we are some of the right's most politically active people. We post on a site that's about hobos jerky, drinking, and politics...but mostly politics for goodness sake.

More importantly this lowers our expectations which is actually really, really, bad for this audience right now.

Let me give you a particular example. Let's suppose the last poll in WA has Rossi by a nose. Come election night its tied...and the Dems "find" enough votes to put them over the top. An Eeyore says, well, we weren't going to win that one anyway, the polls were close and its a Dem state.

An angry, motivated conservative that believes we were going to win and keeps fighting. The polls showed us ahead, my favorite forum said we were going to win, and I know how those ballots were found...this DOES NOT END LIKE IN 2004.

Posted by: 18-1 at October 31, 2010 06:34 PM (bgcml)

43
Here's another reason to get on the stick and show up. The current City Journal (excellent conservative NY publication, for those who don't know it) has an article about the Stalinist "Working Families Party," with just 50,000 members, that has maneuvered itself, partly illegally, into being a kingmaker in New York State politics.

AND they've seeded themselves in other states around the nation. Look Out.

So Greg has decided West Virginia is where he is making his final, desperate, Custard-like stand. Fine. Lets track Greg's past performance:

1. Greg started talking trash about Pennsylvania. Opps.

2. Greg started talking trash about Kentucky. Opps.

3. Greg started talking trash about Wisconsin. Opps.

4. Greg started lying about Colorado. Opps.

Any chance we can induce Greg to start talking about Vermont? Please, please, please.

Posted by: Mallamutt at October 31, 2010 06:37 PM (OWjjx)

47
Is there an email where I can reach Mr. Ace? I have some very important information I need to give him.

Posted by: Serious Cat at October 31, 2010 06:37 PM (bAySe)

48
I don't know how seriously everyone takes the HillBuzz folks, but they swear there is a solid contingent of registered Dems that will vote straight-R until Chicago thuggery is purged from the party. I doubt enthusiasm gap polls or early voting demos reflect that.

Excellent! I never thought the Alaskan Merkin had a chance, but the bad news drip out of there has been disconcerting.

Posted by: Delta Smelt at October 31, 2010 06:38 PM (AZWim)

50
I should also point out that the Redskins lost today and we all know what happens to the Skins before election day effects the results, let's not forget the 1 time that wasn't true was in 04 and I still believe to this day they really won that game had it not been for a stupid penalty call and therefore was a fluke that doesn't factor

Posted by: YRM (The Youngest Commenter On Ace Who Has Big Pudding Plans For Tuesday) at October 31, 2010 06:38 PM (xQuuU)

And some of these MSM articles that have appeared today, strike me as expectation management.

I'm worried that come Wednesday morning, we'll have a 50-seat victory (instead of the tsunami we wanted) and some muthafokker will come on the Today show to tell us that the Dems "outperformed" expectations because Barney Frank wasn't dragged from his home by angry voters and hung from a lamppost, therefore the Rethuglikkkans don't have a mandate.

So this result from PPP is worthy of mention, but the WV poll is biased crap? IMO, they seem to be trying to get these right. If they have Manchin up 5 and he loses by 2, that won't inspire confidence in people to use their service. You can use polls to get headlines far away from the election. The last poll is the one they want to get right.

Slightly OT, but I just watched the video of George W throwiong out the first pitch at the World Series, with his dad at his side. It's here. http://tinyurl.com/2cdbwt2

While George W did a lot of dumb things (foremost was thinking that he could play ball with the Dems and their media maggots by compromising with them), I never once had any reason to question whether W loved this country or deeply respected his office.

Watching the video, I couldn't help compare a man of obvious class and dignity to that pansy shitstain rabble-rouser who defiles the Oval Office today. How could things have gotten so bad, so quickly?

Posted by: Cicero at October 31, 2010 06:42 PM (HGV/y)

65I already voted, but it was so darn much fun I wanna do it again. Paweeeeze??

Oddly, I was sent two absentee ballots. One to an address at which I was not yet even registered and the other about 3 days later when I sent in my new registration with my new address. Probably just a courtesy they extend to illegal aliens.

68AND they've seeded themselves in other states around the nation. Look Out.

We may not normally think this way, but going forward, conservatives are going to have to become activists in a more radicalized manner if we are going to salvage what's left of this great Republic. The leftists have for far to long disproportionally influenced our outcomes. They do it with arm-twisting and coercion, and that should not always be beneath us. Being complacent and meek ain't gonna cut the mustard anymore, folks.

I wrote a ground report on FL there and enjoy the blog but i've always seen their "inside sources" stuff as gossip more then legitimate stuff

Posted by: Greg at October 31, 2010 11:42 PM (huyI

you tried questoning the generic ballot from Gallup/USA Today hypocrite and plus PPP said Hoffman in a blow out so what the Hell are you talking about getting it right? PPP is still counting on an 08 turnout

Posted by: YRM (The Youngest Commenter On Ace Who Has Big Pudding Plans For Tuesday) at October 31, 2010 06:45 PM (xQuuU)

74
Who cares bout all the election shit, when do we get to fuck Greg and his mom?

Posted by: cali grump at October 31, 2010 06:46 PM (hL0k8)

75some muthafokker will come on the Today show to tell us that the Dems "outperformed" expectations

It's time to stop wringing hands with regards to what the Mainstream Fucking Media thinks or says about anything.

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at October 31, 2010 06:46 PM (vbh31)

76
So this result from PPP is worthy of mention, but
the WV poll is biased crap?

Soap, we are amping up with the activism and vigilism. I have two conservative journalist friends who flew into Houston covering the fraud taking place in Harris County, TX. The conservative group that has identified the fraud should be commended, their name is the King Street Patriots.

But guess which congresswoman is hassling them? None other than the dem crazy Sheil Jackson Lee.

Stand up everybody and don't let these dems continue to cheat. The law is on our side.

Posted by: journolist at October 31, 2010 06:47 PM (O/NP5)

7976
Who cares bout all the election shit, when do we get to fuck Greg and his mom?

His mom only sucks.

Posted by: Bill Clinton at October 31, 2010 06:47 PM (JpFM9)

80Consider that in 1998, people decided, yes, Bill Clinton had perjured
himself, not once but several times, and obstructed justice. But they
had also decided to give him a pass on serial lawbreaking because the
economy was too good and vote for Democrats (in an effort to stop
impeachment).

Yeah, but in 1998, there wasn't 15%+ real unemployment and a collapsing economy. And no one is threatening to impeach Obama.

81Peaches,,,and if you use both, they'll throw them both out....because you no speaka da spanyishda.

Yeah, I actually shredded one. The other I'm taking to the voting place personally on Tuesday morning. Now if I could only get off the damn fence and mark something in the "governor" area, I'd be all set. When they say there are still 5% undecided on that particular crapfest, I think they may be underestimating.

Posted by: Peaches at October 31, 2010 06:47 PM (zxpIo)

82
Is this the wrong thread to confess that Chris Christie gives me weird and confusing feelings in my boy parts?

Posted by: I think I have the ghey at October 31, 2010 06:48 PM (ZXnUe)

8384
Is this the wrong thread to confess that Chris Christie gives me weird and confusing feelings in my boy parts?

Posted by: I think I have the ghey at October 31, 2010 11:48 PM (ZXnUe)

troll Greg will at least be gone come after the elections, his an axelrod troll, no doubt about it when you look at the fact he didn't show up until the last month and has been only harpening on losing, this is eeyorism beyond allahpussy himself, no body should treat him as just some moby or moron we disagree with; I also support a banning of him for election coverage and I also want to keep asking the prick if we take back the House in numbers not seen since 1948 and still come up short in the senate is that a wave? let me guess, no? again look at 1930 as a prime example that yes a wave election can show one chamber come up short of power change, it can merely begin the change and finish it 2 years later

Posted by: YRM (The Youngest Commenter On Ace Who Has Big Pudding Plans For Tuesday) at October 31, 2010 06:50 PM (xQuuU)

Watching the video, I couldn't help compare a man of obvious class and dignity to that pansy shitstain rabble-rouser who defiles the Oval Office today. How could things have gotten so bad, so quickly?

Posted by: Cicero at October 31, 2010 11:42 PM (HGV/y)

People think that things like the economy and even politics are impersonal forces, like the weather. They aren't - they are reflections of the hopes and beliefs of lots of people.

The economy runs on trust - sometimes foolish trust, but trust. Before this crash, it had been 20-30 years since real bad times, which is forever. Now, everyone knows that bad shit can happen, and happen to them. This may take years for people to 'get over'.

Posted by: Oldcat at October 31, 2010 06:50 PM (CN+Qv)

88
Oh fuck off Gerg. Didn't you say to watch out for the upcoming PPP from AK? Miller has gotten everything thrown at him and he's still the favorite. If the core tea party issues weren't the driving force in this election, he'd be done. That's evidence of a wave.

Not that I was involved in knocking PPP, but it wouldn't surprise me either if their WV poll is right. Machnin had to put an actual bullet through the cap-and-tax bill to retake the lead. He ran as a more conservative Republican than Raese, he's popular and a win would make sense.

But that said, you fucking nincompoop twat muscle, that is only more evidence of the GOP wave, not less of it.

Greg, you are engaged in folly. Our goal is to secure a majority in the lower chamber and wield subpoena power through control of committees.

The wheel will fall off this administration and the dems that circumvented the constitution.

As we speak, plans are being drawn up in prosecuting a relentless legal battle against the dems, the dems' corruption is mind boggling and will be exposed.

Come back on this board in a few months.

Thanks for playing.

Posted by: journolist at October 31, 2010 06:53 PM (O/NP5)

91Here in NC, they don't necessarily print the party affiliations of the judicial candidates, which makes it tricky. Also, the ballot initiatives are sometimes worded in such a way that you have to read up a bit to know whether a "no" vote is to pass or defeat the measure.

Posted by: Wodeshed at October 31, 2010 11:28 PM (MFbfZ)

You can go to the NC GOP website & get their endorsements for judges. I used that & then researched online for their rulings on cases. Some of them have their website addresses listed with the GOP & you can read some of their top cases there.

Posted by: Steph at October 31, 2010 06:53 PM (ZfkPl)

92
Except in Colorado. DO NOT VOTE STRAIGHT REPUBLICAN IN COLORADO. Vote Tancredo for Governor. THEN hit the R's down the line.

Ace brings up a good point. Imagine you're a working class, reasonable, somewhat apolitical Dem. You're not of the far-left socialist variety- you were raised as a Dem, voted Dem your entire life (out of habit if nothing else) and you still hold the outdated notion that it's the party of the little guy.

If a pollster called you up, would you really want to admit that you're a Dem the way things are in the country right now?

On the other hand, I doubt many Republicans would have a problem proclaiming themselves to be in the party not currently in power.

Don't get cocky, kid. Get your ass out there and vote on Tues, but don't be too disappointed if the best case scenario doesn't play out. Revel in the fact that we'll be controlling the House and able to stop most of the Obama / Pelosi insanity in it's tracks.

Of course, if you're a Democrat- don't forget to vote on Wednesday.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at October 31, 2010 06:58 PM (plsiE)

96Any chance we can induce Greg to start talking about Vermont? Please, please, please.
Biden is just going to Vermont to take a well-deserved rest!
Nothing to see here, move along, move along!

102
I've done phone polls. People are NOT afraid to speak their minds about politics over the phone to strangers. They just aren't.

They are probably reluctant to talk politics in the workplace or maybe in person to people they occasionally interact with--don't want your A/C guy to screw up your vents because he took offense to your defense of Dukakis--but talking to strangers is a whole nother thing

If anything, people say Amazingly Personal Shit to strangers on the phone

Why am I confidently predicting a win by a little-known underfunded Republican in a D+8 district against a nine-term incumbent? Because a confident incumbents campaign doesnt do things like this:

Republican Congressional Candidate Nick Popaditch is responding to an ad Congressman Bob Filner is running about his voting record.

The ad Filner is running claims Popaditch has not voted for more than 11 years, but KUSI has documents showing thats not the case.

Popaditch says he even rushed to vote after being released from the hospital due to injuries he received serving in Iraq, I voted this year, in 08, 06 in 04. Even when I was discharged from the hospital due to my wounds in combat, I had to speed out to San Bernardino where I was stationed out at 29 Palms in San Bernardino County to cast my vote in 04 to make it there before the polls closed.

Good to hear. I gave the the Popaditch campaign $25 the other week; If he wins I will credit myself.

Posted by: Serious Cat at October 31, 2010 07:06 PM (bAySe)

105If anything, people say Amazingly Personal Shit to strangers on the phone

You don't say.

Posted by: 1-900-DD-BOOBS at October 31, 2010 07:07 PM (Ew1k4)

106It's time to stop wringing hands with regards to what the Mainstream Fucking Media thinks or says about anything.

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at October 31, 2010 11:46 PM (vbh31)

Soap, I care about what the MSM says, because I want to utterly crush the Democrats. I want break their spirits and hear the lamentations of their women. I want them to feel so sick of politics that they vow to never participate again.

The trouble with raising expectations too high is that if our margin of victory falls short, the MSM will give the Democrats a narrative that will allow them to feel better about their loses.

"Yeah, we lost 60 seats, but Chuck Todd said were were going to lose 70. Things weren't as bad as they could have been."

Yeah, but in 1998, there wasn't 15%+ real unemployment and a collapsing economy. And no one is threatening to impeach Obama.

His point is valid though- it's entirely possible that some people didn't want to admit that they were a member of the BJs From Chubby Interns Party.

In the privacy of a voting booth they'd pull the lever for the Dem, but it doesn't mean they weren't a bit embarrassed about the prospect of endorsing or defending Clinton's behavior.

It's possible that it's happening to some degree now. The economy is shit, Obama and Pelosi are serial fuckups, the deficit is through the roof, etc. While they're a bit ashamed to admit they're Dems, they'll still vote for them

I don't know if that's what's happening or not; we'll find out late Nov 2nd / early Nov 3rd.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at October 31, 2010 07:07 PM (plsiE)

108
'Night, kids! Don't forget to put your toys away before you go to bed. I don't want to get up to pee and step in a steaming pile of gerg in the dark.

I've done phone polls. People are NOT afraid to speak their minds about politics over the phone to strangers. They just aren't.

Most people aren't, but it only takes a few people out of every hundred who are to skew the numbers.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at October 31, 2010 07:10 PM (plsiE)

111It cheap nike air max is nike air max 180 not only the nike air max ltd supply of raw materials for the shoe, also supply nike air max 97 shoe "popular element", nike air max classic bw from the source began nike air max 1
Buy My Shoes, Or I Will Crush You, Republicans!

Posted by: Grug, Moby Of Doom at October 31, 2010 07:11 PM (Hu/Da)

112
If you can't beat the 1894 election, you have failed, Republicans!
Bwahaha!
The fragmented and disoriented Democratic Party was crushed everywhere outside the South, losing more than half its seats to the Republican Party. Even in the South, the Democrats lost seats to Republican-Populist electoral fusion in Alabama, Texas, Tennessee, and North Carolina.[1][2] The Democrats lost 125 seats in the election while the Republicans gained 130 seats. This makes the 1894 election the largest midterm election victory in the entire history of the United States.

Posted by: Grug, Moby Of Doom at October 31, 2010 07:13 PM (Hu/Da)

113
Already have plans with the family to get together after work at the parents house and watch THE RECKONING unfold live on Fox all night long.

I am so freakin excited to vote, you have no idea. My stomach has been in knots for weeks.

115watch THE RECKONING unfold live on Fox all night long.
Nah, watch MSNBC. It will be funnier!

Posted by: Zombie Rahm Emanuel, Who Knew When To Get Out Of Dodge at October 31, 2010 07:18 PM (Hu/Da)

116I've done phone polls. People are NOT afraid to speak their minds about
politics over the phone to strangers. They just aren't.

Caller ID. I never, never answer a political survey call. Then the pollsters get sneaky and mask their ID. Click. You can bet there are a ton of 2010 voters who will not give the media the time of day, and all the pollsters have to account for DNAs are models from prior elections, and you know what they are worth this year.

We may not normally think this way, but going forward, conservatives are going to have to become activists in a more radicalized manner if we are going to salvage what's left of this great Republic.

I was thinking about this earlier today, in a slightly different context. The Dems (the wing that includes unions, Acorn, etc) coerce, inimidate, lie, cheat, and ingraine an attitude of superiority amongst their flock while ridiculing and demonizing their opposition.

Why do they do this? The easy answer is that they're despicable people. But I think the deeper reason is that they have to. The Dems in power (who desperately want to stay in power) know that they can't let Dem voters think too much, or they may start asking uncomfortable questions. So they squash all critical thinking on their own side. We have to find a way to combat this.

Posted by: Mayday at October 31, 2010 07:21 PM (TRgli)

118
I did vote Libertarian against my Rep, Culberson. But only because there was no D (so I could get away with it) and because Culberson is one of the K Street Project hangovers from DeLay's tenure.
Also, the tx 22 guys have the choice between a conservative (Olson) and Kesha Rogers, the LaRouchie, who supports legislation to declare Obama incompetent as per amendment 25. God bless the Gulf Coast Kook Kontingent.

Posted by: Zimriel at October 31, 2010 07:24 PM (C8mwO)

119
And to be sure no one takes anything for granted, here is a reminder from our own friends, neighbors and countrymen/countrywomen: "A T I M E T O V O T E".

Please watch and share this video, where ordinary Americans talk and cry about their struggles. WARNING: this may be HEARTBREAKING TO WATCH.

Title: A Time to Vote by VidSweethttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG6W6CALBn4

Let people remember this and hear from others, so that they can be informed when they go to the polls this Tuesday!!! Email, post on social media sites, and post on blogs.

You know why Alaskans are going to pull away for Murscruntski? Because of all the BS she's been caught pulling to skew the vote in her favor.

You don't use your campaign to get a popular DJ pulled from the airwaves. You don't get your buddies on the court to change an established regulation to get a write-in list distributed in polling places. You don't cause your state, you supposedly care so much about, to be embarrased in the whole country.

The Election division lied to the DOJ to usurp the Voting Rights Act, so the election can be skewed in her favor. They got caught. Don't know what will happen, but it will go in front of a federal judge, now, because they're getting sued.

Two days before the election to have the media get caught trying to gin up stories to trash Miller didn't help, either.

The bitch is pissing off more people every day. I imagine many people that may not have been planning to vote will be happy to get their asses to the polls to throw her sniveling ass out.

124
I want to hunt down the alleged 8% of Republicans who are going to vote for Boxer and give them brand new concrete shoes.
There is absolutely no excuse on this fucking planet that warrants a SINGLE California Republican to not vote- ENDING BOXERS CAREER trumps all but but buts.

126
"Why do polls usually include too many Democrats? Because people don't want to answer political questions if they're Republicans, as they know their answers will tend to be disfavored..."
I have been polled this cycle. I was happy to rate the president, the parties and local candidates on a scale of 1-to-100.
But then the guy started asking about my age, income and education and I hung up on him. I don't know you pal, so it is none of your business.

128
As long as we're playing devil's advocate, a decent amount of the people who are energized for our side this year may not want to say they're Republicans either 1.) because they're annoyed at how the leadership's been treating their candidates or 2.) because they're still disillusioned from earlier years.
Posted by: AD at October 31, 2010 11:31 PM
Yeah, and I'll go even further...
The election on Tuesday is akin to the NFL draft. Many people celebrate their team's draft selections. But they really don't mean anything unless they produce.
So no matter how small or big the GOP wins on Tuesday, I'm waiting to celebrate until I see how our 'draft choices' perform on the field. Will they be a bunch of Ryan Leafs or a bunch of Peyton Mannings? Will they just go back to be the GOP of 2000-2006 (which, of course, was better than the Democrats of 2007-present, but that's not what we need now) and be a bunch of McCains/Grahmnestys/Snowes/Collins or will they be the kick-ass, 'reverse all this shit' fighters that we elect them to be and be a bunch of Paul Ryans, Marco Rubios, Sarah Palins, Michelle Bachmanns?
Time will tell.
Our 'draft' is Tuesday. Unfortunately, we won't know if the draft results will give us a good championship GOP team until next year. If they work together to repeal Obamacare, we'll know we got ourselves a draft of Peyton Mannings. If they end up going squishy again and talking compromise and no repeal, we'll know we just got fucked again and we have ourselves a bunch of Ryan Leafs.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at October 31, 2010 07:53 PM (NITzp)

129
I wonder why candidates do what Crist and Murkowsky have done. If they had played it right, they'd still have a political future. Even Nixon knew not to challenge the results when Chicago delivered the presidency to Kennedy. He knew he'd look like a spoilsport and blow his future chances. He played it right. What the heck is going on now?

I read the source article on the DOJ problem and then recalled the following from an article reporting the AK Supreme Court's reversal of Pfiffner's ruling:

Voters who ask for it can still be shown the list of write-in
candidates, the court ruled. However, the list can't include the party
affiliation of the write-in candidates. And the ballot of any voter who
asks for the list will be segregated from those of other voters, pending
any additional appeals, according to the ruling.

131
#121Are you sure about Culberson? He used to be my rep. You know, he voted against medicare part d, to his credit. Also, he's part of the Republican Study Group and is pretty good on immigration.

Posted by: Chris at October 31, 2010 07:56 PM (B/WwP)

132
What the heck is going on now?
Posted by: rdbrewer at November 01, 2010 12:54 AM
Maybe they think they're the GOP's version of Joe Lieberman? That they were pushed out by right-wing radicals in the GOP, similar to how Lieberman was pushed out by the left-wing radicals of the Democrat Party?

But then the guy started asking about my age, income and education and I hung up on him. I don't know you pal, so it is none of your business.

I had one call like that too. Wasn't pleased at all they thought they could even ask. There was another poll call I got where the premise of the question they asked about the candidate wasn't even factual, and then asked if it made me more or less likely to vote for him. It bothered me thinking of uninformed people that would be asked about it. I told him the facts were wrong and they needed to throw the question out. It was about the Republican candidate, of course. Bastards.

And the ballot of any voter who asks for the list will be segregated from those of other voters, pending any additional appeals, according to the ruling.

MRP, it's silly that they're going to sequester those ballots. What, are they going to disenfranchise the voters if they decide lists are wrong after the hearing? I think not. Setting the votes aside is just bad window dressing.

rdbrewer. Being a Senator is an exclusive club. MurCUNTski, never campaigned for nor earned that position. She did win as an imcumbant after her Father gave her the job.

MurCUNTski's DADDY..............GAVE HER THE JOB.

That is fucking disgusting. It shows a lack of character on both MurCUNTski and her Father as well. Jesus H. Christ, is there NO HONOUR at all?? Didn't her FATHER have ANY HONOUR????

No. Nor does she. She accepted the NEPOTISTIC/INCESTUOUS gift and after being told NO, by ALASKA'S Republicans, her EGO continues.

MurCUNTski is EXACTLY why TEA PARTIES EXIST.

Charlie Crist is on a level all his own. HE IS COMPLETE SHIT.

rdbrewer. These people have ZERO honour. We need to VET those we vote for. Character is THE FIRST THING WE NEED TO CONSIDER.

Posted by: gus at October 31, 2010 08:03 PM (C02p4)

140
More importantly this lowers our expectations which is actually really, really, bad for this audience right now.
Let me give you a particular example. Let's suppose the last poll in WA has Rossi by a nose. Come election night its tied...and the Dems "find" enough votes to put them over the top.
Posted by: 18-1 at October 31, 2010 11:34 PM
I believe this is why all the polls are predicting --and the MF-ing media is echoing -- HUGE GOP wins on Tuesday... to raise expectations for the GOP.
So that when the Democrats steal all the close elections as they are planning on doing, and the GOP doesn't win as big as predicted, the MF-ing media can spin it as "well, the GOP didn't do as well as everyone predicted it would, so this is good news for Obama and the Democrats. It must mean that people really aren't with the Rush/Palin/Beck/TEA Party radicals."
We know the MF-ing media has a history of biased polling. Before they made it biased in their favor on all issues in order to sway public opinion in their favor (show a majority of Americans support X, in order to get others to support X so they can be with the majority of Americans). So they're doing kind of the opposite now.
They're preparing for big losses, but they want to be able to spin the losses in their favor. Easy way to spin it is to raise expectations higher than they know the GOP will achieve and then say afterward that the GOP didn't do as well as hoped.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at October 31, 2010 08:05 PM (NITzp)

141But then the guy started asking about my age, income and education and I hung up on him. I don't know you pal, so it is none of your business.I had one call like that too. Wasn't pleased at all they thought they could even ask. There was another poll call I got where the premise of the question they asked about the candidate wasn't even factual, and then asked if it made me more or less likely to vote for him. It bothered me thinking of uninformed people that would be asked about it. I told him the facts were wrong and they needed to throw the question out. It was about the Republican candidate, of course. Bastards.
Not that you were wrong to hang up, but the reason why you were being asked those questions was the magic of "stratified random sampling". For example, it is harder to get affluent people on the phone, so if you just call 600 people, affluent people will be underrepresented. The way pollsters try to correct for this is that if they know that 20% of their population is affluent, but only 10% of the people they polled were, they will give affluent people double weight in the pool. It's actually a bit more complicated than that in practice, but that is the general idea.

Posted by: Zombie Rahm Emanuel, Who Knew When To Get Out Of Dodge at October 31, 2010 08:06 PM (Hu/Da)

142They're preparing for big losses, but they want to be able to spin the losses in their favor.
The problem is, forecasting big Democratic losses suppresses Democratic turnout. It's a dilemma!

Posted by: Zombie Rahm Emanuel, Who Knew When To Get Out Of Dodge at October 31, 2010 08:09 PM (Hu/Da)

143
And some of these MSM articles that have appeared today, strike me as expectation management.
I'm worried that come Wednesday morning, we'll have a 50-seat victory (instead of the tsunami we wanted) and some muthafokker will come on the Today show to tell us that the Dems "outperformed" expectations because Barney Frank wasn't dragged from his home by angry voters and hung from a lamppost, therefore the Rethuglikkkans don't have a mandate.
Posted by: DelD at October 31, 2010 11:38 PM
Yep, this is my speculation too. They know they're going to lose, so they're setting things up for their post-election spin. Prepping the battlefield, so to speak.
Make sure everyone knows that the GOP is supposed to win HUGE, so that when the GOP only wins big, they can spin that as a 'positive' for the Democrats and Obama.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at October 31, 2010 08:10 PM (NITzp)

144
Just remember, boys and girls, it's not the vote that counts, it's who is counting the vote that really counts. It's the Chicago Way. There is still time to sign up as poll watchers or bring a phone w/ camera and video with you to your polling place. The dems have now been well schooled in the many ways of how the Chicago Combine has been stealing elections for the past 100 years. Know the ways of the enemy. In Chicago, the decision on who is going to win a race has usually been predetermined many moons before anyone has stepped into a voting booth on election day. Prez. Hopey Dopey has never been elected, to any office, without using the Way of the Shit-town guyz. Be safe out there and vote early and vote often!

Posted by: TonyRezko at October 31, 2010 08:13 PM (f1ORL)

145
The problem is, forecasting big Democratic losses suppresses Democratic turnout. It's a dilemma!
Posted by: Zombie Rahm Emanuel, Who Knew When To Get Out Of Dodge at November 01, 2010 01:09 AM
True, but I think they're already resigned to that fact. So they're now planning their post-election strategy.
And actually, back in 2008, I was even more inspired to get my ass to the polls simply because I had gotten so sick of the arrogance and gloating of the Left by November, that I didn't care if we were expected to lose, I was going to go vote out of spite.
So that may be their strategy too. Try to 'inspire' people to vote by noting the confidence of the GOP that they're going to win big.
It will affect people in different ways. Some will say "aw, screw it, I'm not gonna even bother then" and others will be like me and go vote just to try to stick it to the other side.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at October 31, 2010 08:15 PM (NITzp)

146
I can't vote "straight ticket" because of one down-ticket race for my local County Council where the incumbent Republican has stood for disastrous spending and avoiding submitting bond issues to the voters by any means possible (all of which were legal, but not required), and scoffs at any notion of accountability. His Democratic opponent is a local businessman who could not possibly be worse.

Think of it as my effort at bipartisanship.

Posted by: Adjoran at October 31, 2010 08:15 PM (VfmLu)

147
IMHO, if this thing goes the way we are all hoping it will, please don't gloat. Remember that we haven't "won" when we win elections - we have "won" when the policies we are arguing for are put into practice, and they result in increasing liberty, prosperity and security for America. Winning elections is only the beginning.

Posted by: jeopardyjackson at October 31, 2010 08:22 PM (eV1Im)

148MRP, it's silly that they're going to sequester those ballots. What,
are they going to disenfranchise the voters if they decide lists are
wrong after the hearing? I think not. Setting the votes aside is just
bad window dressing.

AK Supreme Court justices face retention elections. A DoJ probe will probably put those clowns in the hot seats. Three of the five justices were appointed by Republican governors (2-Palin, 1-Parnell) and two were appointed by Dem governor Tony Knowles.

If the AK SC had simply upheld the law as it was enforced for the last 50 years, they'd be in good shape. Now they look like political tools for the Murky machine. And if Miller wins convincingly, the members of the SC had better be updating their resumes.

150
I was just checking my own link and the guys at hyscience put up the tape of GWB and his dad.

Posted by: curious at October 31, 2010 08:25 PM (p302b)

151
IMHO, if this thing goes the way we are all hoping it will, please don't gloat. Remember that we haven't "won" when we win elections - we have "won" when the policies we are arguing for are put into practice, and they result in increasing liberty, prosperity and security for America. Winning elections is only the beginning.
Posted by: jeopardyjackson at November 01, 2010 01:22 AM
Exactly. Recall just 2 years ago at this time, the Democrats and liberals were gloating about their electoral wins and expecting decades of progressive utopia and lots of progressive legislation to be passed. They got Obamacare and the 'spread the wealth around from the working to the Democrats' left-wing groups' "Stimulus", but then things changed.
The same could happen to the GOP. Having a majority does us no good if they don't actually legislate in a fiscally conservative manner and don't go hard to repeal Obamacare and stop any other socialist bullshit Obama and the Democrats want to enact.

The point to all of that list crap is that the election division lied to the DOJ when they requested the change in regulation. They got caught. Plus, the list was not to be written in anything other than English. Another VRA violation.

It has gone way beyond the AK Supreme Court, at this point.

Posted by: Steph at October 31, 2010 08:31 PM (ZfkPl)

153
A guest on Batchelor said tonight that princess leeza in Alaska indicated that she might not caucus with the republicans and might in fact caucus with the dems. A discussion of how the independents have power and are courted by both sides ensued.

Then I started to think about how smart the republican party thinks they are. Earlier today I heard them say "if princess leeza wins then we have a republican in the seat no matter what"....true brilliance...apparently even she couldn't even let that one stand even one day. Bet they are so regretting not stripping her of all her chairpersonships now. Cause if she should win, can she fight to retain those chairpersonships and seats on committees? Bet she already knows the answer to that one and has an army of attorneys ready to argue her back into her seat and back onto her committees and chairpersonships.....

Posted by: curious at October 31, 2010 08:36 PM (p302b)

154If the AK SC had simply upheld the law as it was enforced for the last 50 years, they'd be in good shape. Now they look like political tools for the Murky machine. And if Miller wins convincingly, the members of the SC had better be updating their resumes.

Posted by: mrp at November 01, 2010 01:22 AM (HjPtV)

Isn't one of the judges up for retention this election? A woman, I believe.

They're preparing for big losses, but they want to be able to spin the losses in their favor.

That's why we need to crush them.

It's sort of amusing reading here that Ace suspects we conservatives may be complacent, thinking the election's in the bag.

I'm in Texas, as red as state as it gets, and not even I think that. I've been watching the smug Democrats governing against the will of the people for the past 2 years, and the one thought that kept popping into my mind is that since they obviously don't care what the electorate thinks is that they must be planning on stealing some elections. Which would explain their confidence.

Watching Obama's international exploits have just deepened my suspicions. One of the first things he did was to declare Honduras' ouster of Zelaya "illegal." Using the same intellectual rigor he did declaring the Hartford PD's actions against his buddy "stupid;" he didn't have any facts and he didn't need them.

The entire government of Honduras was united against Zelaya's attempt to remain in office, clearly illegal under their constitution. But Barack Obama is by his own admission no respecter of constitutions; they say what he as our divine ruler can't do. That is until he appoints enough Sotomayors and Kagans to the bench, then that'll magically change.

So Barack Obama just followed his instincts and concluded that anytime a President is removed from office before he wants to go it must be improper, the laws be damned. And then he tripped over himself to congratulate Ahmadinejad's "victory" in an obviously rigged election, while willfully ignoring the fact that the Iranian regime was brutalizing and killing its own citizens.

Obama could have cared less. They do things the same way in Chicago, if not quite with such a free hand or high level of obvious violence.

It made me wonder what he and his party intend for us.

I'm not going to grow complacent until the Obamas are on a permanent Costa del Sol vacation, the Democratic party is no more than a speed bump in Congress, the federal bureaucracy is decimated, and the judiciary is reined in.

Until then, I'm not only voting, I'm walking neighborhoods, working phone banks, and volunteering as a poll watcher to make sure the bastards can't pull anything off.

...princess leeza in Alaska indicated that she might not caucus with the republicans and might in fact caucus with the dems. A discussion of how the independents have power and are courted by both sides ensued.Posted by: curious at November 01, 2010 01:36 AM (p302b)

She was stupid enough to tell that to CNN & to Greta tonight. I imagine that some of the Repubs that may have been considering voting for her may think twice, now. It's one thing to choose between 2 Repubs to vote for. It's another to throw your vote to a Repub that says she may vote with Dems.

Posted by: Steph at October 31, 2010 08:41 PM (ZfkPl)

157There was another poll call I got where the premise of the question
they asked about the candidate wasn't even factual, and then asked if it
made me more or less likely to vote for him. It bothered me thinking
of uninformed people that would be asked about it. I told him the facts
were wrong and they needed to throw the question out. It was about the
Republican candidate, of course. Bastards.

Posted by: Annabelle at November 01, 2010 01:00 AM (Zeljq)

Annabelle - That is called a "push poll". A deliberate technique to spread negative (and often false) information on an opponent. Very often the results are never published (or possibly even recorded) as their only reason for being is slander and libel.

Posted by: Have Blue at October 31, 2010 08:43 PM (mV+es)

158
I never ever answer polls and they call all the time. Neither does anyone in my family and I have a large family. Hell when I was young most people I know wouldn't even vote because they used the voter rolls to pick you for jury duty. They finally switched that.

Posted by: Rocks at October 31, 2010 08:48 PM (AoVGn)

159
As to Murky I've said it before and I'll say it again, answering a phone poll is a lot different than showing up AND writing a name in. She will struggle to break 15% of the vote on election day. For a candidate to win with a write in they have to have great personal magnetism or be the soul representive of a certain driving issue critical to voters. Murky is neither.

Curious. That confounds me. MurCUNTski, SHIT on the REPUBLICAN PARTY. But the REPUBLICAN PARTY as it currently exists, is OKAY with that.

MurCUNTski, SHOULD HAVE BEEN SHIT CANNED in any and every way, when she SHITCANNED the PARTY.

It's called CHARACTER.

Posted by: gus at October 31, 2010 09:06 PM (C02p4)

165
Right now: my picks are 245/190 R/D in the House and 48/52 R/D Senate. Vamos a ver.

Posted by: David Gillies at October 31, 2010 09:10 PM (xb68W)

166
gus, Batchelor's guest said it, they discussed it and i was sort of horrified and embarrassed for the republicans. And then steph added this:

"She was stupid enough to tell that
to CNN & to Greta tonight. I imagine that some of the Repubs that
may have been considering voting for her may think twice, now. It's
one thing to choose between 2 Repubs to vote for. It's another to
throw your vote to a Repub that says she may vote with Dems.

Posted by: Steph at November 01, 2010 01:41 AM (ZfkPl)"

and it just blew my mind.....

Posted by: curious at October 31, 2010 09:11 PM (p302b)

167
Have Blue, thanks and that makes sense as to why it was asked like it was. I'm in WA so it was about the Murray/Rossi race. I will be over the moon if that wretched woman loses.

Posted by: Annabelle at October 31, 2010 09:11 PM (Zeljq)

168
Oh I keep meaning to tell you guys....arianna's free buses to DC to the rally left late and they got to the rally really really late, almost missed it......

Posted by: curious at October 31, 2010 09:14 PM (p302b)

169
Never heard of "vision" and had no idea there were flights from NY to Cuba...

Posted by: curious at October 31, 2010 09:17 PM (p302b)

170
Hahahhahha, you've got to see this picture...an adorable little kid went to the WH halloween party dressed as BO, with a twist....

After reviewing your many posts here, we have decided that you are worthy of a one time only invitation to our specialized hunt in the great Red State of Northern Florida. Everything shall be provided, just getchere. Lessons will be given on the fine art of dealing with Florida Crackers and hitting or being a running target. After this indoctrnation, you will be allowed to hunt. Be warned that if you wind up being chased by a bear or wild hawg that some of us are only shooting blanks. And it will not be the bear or the hawg.

Sincerely.......

Posted by: rightlysouthern at October 31, 2010 09:41 PM (GorpP)

172
"To The GOP Leaders Trying To Stop Palin: November 2 Is Only The Beginning" linkGuess these people were also the ones who made that amazingly smart decision to let princess keep her committee spots.....

Posted by: curious at October 31, 2010 09:44 PM (p302b)

173
It occurred to me that if you want to stop Sarah, whether they win or not, you're going to have to contend with Carly and Meg and Christine and Governor Brewer and that gal in South Carolina and oh my, that list of strong conservative women keeps growing....monica, anne, megyn on fox, laura, geez I bet we moronettes could come up with some long list....oh and the WWF gal......

Posted by: curious at October 31, 2010 09:48 PM (p302b)

174
My advice to the good ol' boys that want to go after Sarah...... talk to Frank Murcowski first, it might not be a good idea!

179Some people might feel ashamed to take that position, putting, as it
did, filthy lucre ahead of principle and legality -- and in that case,
they might have decided their answers were the disfavored ones, and thus
avoided pollsters, resulting in Republican support being overstated.

I don't think it was that simple. I think people thought the Republicans were going too far, they did not want the spectacle of an impeachment process and they did not want Al Gore for President all that much either. I don't think it was just about self interest.

182Sorry, but I won't vote a straight ticket in Utah. Too many Mopublicans are Bloombergesque in their desire to control the personal lives of others. But I'm not voting for any Democrats.
Same for me in Ohio. We've got that jackass Mike DeWine on the ticket for Attorney General thanks to his cousin, so I'm voting for Robert Owens (Constitution Party) instead.

183
I think Ace is right. The GOP gets around a +29 pickup in the House and a +5 pickup in the Senate. And even if he was not right, too late, he already jinxed the GOP for tomorrow.

Posted by: Randy Quaalude at November 01, 2010 03:20 AM (3RuDB)

184
When it comes to how the Republican party will perform in any respect, I always choose Eeyoreism. If they handle things better than I thought, it's a pleasant surprise, and it's less of a letdown if they screw up something that should be a huge opportunity.

Posted by: RM at November 01, 2010 03:31 AM (1kwr2)

185
I will look at the early results on races expected to stay Dem, like Kucinich. If the Repub is doing much better than expected we can probably take the rest of the races to the bank...I'm sort of a cross between Eeyore and Shirley Temple. I have to say that so far all our effort has paid off here in PA. Let's hope the results are phenomenal.

187No matter what the polls say, you need to vote, and vote party-line, straight ticket.
No. I never vote straight ticket. There might be a state race between just a Democrat and a Libertarian, and I want to make sure I vote against that Democrat, too.

Posted by: Naqamel at November 01, 2010 05:12 AM (UMwMT)

188
The Emperor is taking off work tomorrow to GOTV. The Icecream Empire will have to run itself for a day.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at November 01, 2010 05:28 AM (epBek)

189But this year, conservatives might be so eager to proclaim their
political views, and liberals so sheepish about it (their god is exposed
as a weakling charlatan) that the typical situation is reversed, as was
the case in 1998, and polls overstate rather than understate
conservative strength, and understate rather than overstate liberal
strength.

I don't believe that's ever the situation with people talking to pollsters. My feeling is that most pollsters are going to be liberal-left oriented, since they are part of the media, and again libs feel they will be rewarded for the standard left outlook.

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at November 01, 2010 05:40 AM (bvfVF)

190
I'm preparing myself mentally. I keep a bit of dread mixed in because it has been difficult for conservatives since the 60s. You could write country music songs about the heartbreak.

I believe the GOP will win decisively tomorrow but we've wanted this so bad for so long to correct the disasters of 2006 and 2008 that if the results tomorrow aren't Act of God territory, we'll be disappointed. We want the message delivered loud and clear, written by a giant finger tracing out giant Hebrew letters in gold and narrated by someone sounding awfully like Charlton Heston.

Overall, though, the GOP is going to do well and in places some had given up on.

But this was the easiest part of a tough job -- now we have to herd these cats in DC to actually pretend they're "fiscal conservatives". That's where the heartaches have always been.

Posted by: Full Moon at November 01, 2010 06:47 AM (DtbEv)

191
One problem with Silver's statement about 1998. It's wrong. Jay Cost goes through the generic ballot tilt toward the Dems this morning. Silver is basing that 1998 statement off one Fox poll which contradicted all the others.

Posted by: Dave in Fla at November 01, 2010 07:00 AM (b5zVI)

192
I voted for a republican whenever one was available. If one was not available I voted for a libertarian (local judge seats mostly) and then when only a democrat was available I did not caste a vote in that race.
Also I voted against Lloyd Doggett.

196
I was very pleased to find this web-site.I wanted to thanks for your time for this wonderful read!! I definitely enjoying every little bit of it and I have you bookmarked to check out new stuff you blog post.

197
Im impressed, I must say. Really rarely do I encounter a blog thats both educative and entertaining, and let me tell you, you have hit the nail on the head. Your idea is outstanding; the issue is something that not enough people are speaking intelligently about. I am very happy that I stumbled across this in my search for something relating to this.